Marin Readers' Forum for Dec 11, 2013

Every time the word "entitlement" is used in connection with Social Security, I want to scream.

Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the workers and their employers. If you are self-employed, as I am, you pay 15.3% of your income (capped at $100K) to Medicare and Social Security.

Most of us pay into these funds for 50 or more years before we can get a return that we can't afford to live on. It's our money, not a government handout. In order to make Social Security viable, contributions have increased from 4% over 40 years ago to 12.4% today. Half paid by the employer, half by the employee as a deduction from their pay.

The easiest fix for SS, if it has a deficit, is to raise the salary cap on deductions to, say, $150K. It is not an "entitlement" as letter writer Jeffery Phillips claims, nor is it "Sucking at the teat of government" as a Republican congressman claimed. It's our money, get it straight.

Carlo V. Gardin, Fairfax

health insurance

Contraceptive coverage

Even if one were to accept the far-fetched argument that corporations have religious rights, by what stretch can those "rights" trump the medical, religious and privacy rights of their actual flesh and blood employees?

Hobby House, a closely-held corporation, objects to providing its employees with health insurance policies that include mandated coverage for contraceptives and other reproductive medical needs. The family that owns the corporation claims that, because their religion prohibits contraception, the corporation should not be required to provide insurance that would include that coverage.

What about employees who do not share their employers' religious beliefs? Should they be forced to forgo whatever medicine or procedure their employer objects to or pay extra for those services? Should employers whose religion prohibits blood tranfusions, for example, be able to deny that coverage to their employees as well?

There is nothing in any insurance policy that mandates the policy-holder partake of any part of the coverage unless he or she chooses to. That is solely the policy-holder's choice. In fact, the insurance itself provides absolutely no medical procedures or medicines. It merely pays for whatever doctors, hospitals and pharmacies provide.

Why should employers of any kind be able to deny the freedom to make medical choices to their employees? Surely all Americans have the right to make those decisions for themselves. This argument to the contrary is absurd.

Elaine Levy, San Rafael

larkspur landing

Traffic, parking concerns

In the ongoing debate over the planned Larkspur Landing development it is amazing to note how dismissive the proponents are about traffic and parking as if it will take care of itself when it should top the priority list.

Excuse me while I state some facts for consideration. Parking at the Larkspur ferrry is at capacity on weekdays. Parking at the Country Mart is in a fight over ferry riders parking there and by 10 a.m. they need to offer valet parking because of overcrowding. In the afternoons traffic to the Richmond bridge backs up on 101 nearly to Nordstroms, and Sir Francis Drake traffic is stop and go.

Now we will be adding to this the autos from the Rose lane development on Lucky Drive, the Win Cup monster in Corte Madera and possible housing development of a ridge line at Paradise Drive in Tiburon.

Does this sound like the right environment for the planned 920 housing units, 177,000 square feet of commercial development? It's time for common sense and local control to take over.

Douglas Slye, Greenbrae

carol brandt

Money shouldn't decide

I was deeply sorry to read that Carol Brandt had withdrawn her name for supervisor in the upcoming election. What is totally disheartening is that the reason is lack of funding. It's a sad statement of what's happening in the world today; those with money, or access to it, can win.

Personally, I do not look at those glossy mailers that stuff our box for months before elections — they go directly to recycling. I detest the signs posted on lawns and telephone poles, and vow I would never vote for a candidate who insists on defacing our beautiful county. Ads on radio/TV are muted.

Instead, I read statements from the candidates in the Independent Journal (which should be printed free of charge), go to local meetings to hear the candidate speak, and also read the statements in the voting pamphlet. Then I make my decision. These three things should keep the cost of running minimal; and if the candidate knows what they're doing, give the voter enough information.

It's a shame to think that someone who is willing to give of his/her time to help the community be a better place is hampered by lack of funds. And even more so if that person is someone who is from that community and listens to the people and knows what they want!

Judi Schellenberg, San Rafael

pensions

Life expectancy

In a friendly email exchange, a firefighter said to me recently, "The average life expectancy of a public safety officer is 10 years in retirement." This belief is widespread. It colors the views of safety personnel, some of our most valuable and beloved public servants.

Safety workers, especially firefighters, have shorter lifespans because they work in a more hazardous environment. This, the theory goes, justifies them paying into the retirement system for a shorter time, retiring early and getting larger pensions. The logic is compelling.

It just happens not to be true.

In 2010 CalPERS did something called an "experience study." It analyzed life expectancy of a variety of groups of workers in all the years from 1997 to 2007. It can be found on the CalPERS website. The charts addressing this topic are on pages 34 and 35. The cohorts in the study included Miscellaneous Workers, All Safety, Firefighters, Police Officers and County Peace Officers.

A quote from the study is indicative of the results. "As can be seen, the life expectancy of safety members is slightly higher than the life expectancy of miscellaneous members." None of these groups had a life expectancy of under 80 years and none higher than 83 years. The shorter life expectancy of safety workers appears to be a myth.

If the problem of pension funding is to be resolved we all need to be working with the same set of accurate facts.